Posted on 04/04/2015 1:59:27 PM PDT by Steelfish
.
The ekklesia of the first century is no different than the ekklesia today.
Invisible, meeting whenever two or more are gathered in Yeshua’s name (not in the name of the ‘Mary’ spirit for sure!)
We know for sure that the RCC has no part in that ekklesia, as its attributes are those of the tares that the apostles put out of their midst as soon as they showed their nature.
Mammon is not compatible with Yeshua’s ekklesia, nor is a collection of art treasures nor phallus bedecked palaces.
.
You'll have to present your evidence, which at this point amounts to zero.
Here's a bit of evidence that the Church at Philippi fit Catholic criteria::
Paul preached for the first time on European soil in Philippi (Acts 16:12-40). He taught them his belief in and practice of the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ, the same belief and practice in all of the Churches. (1 Corinthians 10:16 "The cup of thanksgiving that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" The word for "thanksgiving" is "Eucharistia".)
Paul was accompanied by Silas & Timothy, the first links of Apostolic Succession, having been discipled and trained in leadership by Paul himself. According to the New Testament, Paul visited the city on two other occasions, in 56 and 57 and --- continuing his teaching, governing and supervisory role (episkopos = supervisor)--- was clearly exercising authority over them when he wrote the Epistle to the Philippians around 61-62.
The continuing development of Christianity in Philippi is attested to by a letter from Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna addressed to the community in Philippi between AD 110 and 140, as well as by funerary inscriptions.
Polycarp, an Apostolic Father and successor of St. John the Evangelist (the chain went John --> Polycarp --> Irenaeus) one again exemplifies episcopal authority and Apostolic Succession. One of his letter's important features is its use and citation of other early Christian writings, many of which later came to be part of the New Testament. Thus canonicity of Scripture was linked to Apostolic Succession.
The first church described in the city is a small structure (proseuche) designated a meeting-house. When Paul was staying in Lydia's house, the Christians used to gather in this designated building,the proseuche, for prayer. By 1-2 centuries later, this had been replaced by the Basilica of Paul, identified by a mosaic inscription on the pavement, which was mentioned by the bishop Porphyrios, who was present at the Catholic Council of Serdica.
Next, the complex cathedral which took the place of the Basilica of Paul at the end of the 5th century, constructed around the earlier, octagonal church, rivaled the churches of Constantinople.
A very good example of how the growing church progresses from worshipping in a small chapel, to a basilica, to a Cathedral.
The need for a written word became necessary later because of the need to summarize orthodox beliefs, settle controversies and refute error.
Do you want to add any evidence to the contrary? Let me know.
If not, I will go on, maybe tomorrow, to analyze Thessalonica.
Sorry. But, it’s just no fun head banging with butterflies.
Just stopped in to see if anything had changed. LOL! It hasn’t. The round up is still flapping their little wings.
See you on the political side.
Paul preached for the first time on European soil in Philippi (Acts 16:12-40). He taught them his belief in and practice of the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ, the same belief and practice in all of the Churches. (1 Corinthians 10:16 "The cup of thanksgiving that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" The word for "thanksgiving" is "Eucharistia".)
When Paul wrote of the "body" he noted several times that we are all the "body" of Christ.
The Greek word for participation in 1 Cor does not give the meaning the catholic hopes. It means sharing in, spiritual fellowship, a fellowship in the spirit. This is not transubstantiation. So this is not a roman catholic practice at Philippi.
Paul was accompanied by Silas & Timothy, the first links of Apostolic Succession, having been discipled and trained in leadership by Paul himself. According to the New Testament, Paul visited the city on two other occasions, in 56 and 57 and --- continuing his teaching, governing and supervisory role (episkopos = supervisor)--- was clearly exercising authority over them when he wrote the Epistle to the Philippians around 61-62.
No one disputes there was training/discipleship going on. That's one of the hallmarks of Christianity. Paul was a church planter. No doubt. What is disputed is that authority was handed down.
What we don't have record of are all of the other churches that were started or accounts of people who lead others to Christ. We know those did happen as Paul's strategy was to plant churches in urban areas with the hope that others would start.
What is also disputed is Paul exercising "authority" over this church.
Notice his introduction
Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons...
Everyone's on the same level.
He describes himself as a bondservant and refers to them as beloved brethren (4:1), greet every saint (4:20).
This is not the sound of someone exercising authority.
Also in this book we have Phil 2:1-11. Notice the call for unity in the church. Also, notice the call to exemplify the humility of Christ.
•There was Baptism as one of the means of salvation.
Getting wet, or sprinkled (?), doesn't save you. It just makes you a wet sinner unless you believe Jesus.
•There was Communion/Eucharist as one of the means of salvation.
This does not save you either. In fact we have an admonition from Paul in Corinthians about taking communion when you're not right with the Lord. Eating and drinking the bread and wine do not save you.
Philippi was solidly a part of the Catholic Church. It matches criteria for Catholicism. I missed any distinctive signs of CynicalBearIsm.
Philippi was solidly Christian. There is a difference.
Do you want to add any evidence to the contrary? Let me know.
Provided above.
I notice you omitted the following:
pope, mary, indulgences, penance, no evidence of a church structure as we understand it today; no liturgy as defined by the rcc.
Philippi was not a roman catholic church. It as a Christian church and the things of the rcc today would be so foreign to them they would immediately recognize them as false teaching.
Reference Cornelius: Was saved before or after he was baptized?
And the answer is: Yes.
As I said, Baptism is one of the means of salvation. The Catholic Church agrees with Scripture in seeing that there are various channels by which Our Lord conveys to us the fullness of redemption. As Scripture says, we are saved:
So my answer would be: Cornelius was saved by being incorporated into Christ by faith, by Baptism, and by whatever other means provided by Our Lord for his redemption.
When asked "Are you saved?" the best answer is "I was saved; I am being saved; and I hope that in the end I will be saved." That goes for Cornelius, too. It's not a one-shot deal. God has 10,000 ways: He is a genius at Salvation, an absolute genius; and His ways are above our ways as the heavens are above the earth, and His thoughts above our thoughts.
(Rolls eyes.) Please note that I did not accept those rules. You seem to be preemptively demanding as a principle something upon which we don't agree.
(Rolls eyes.) Please note that I did not accept those rules. You seem to be preemptively demanding as a principle something upon which we don't agree.
Hey, you agreed to play.
What this really tells me is that the catholic cannot justify their position only on the Word. They have to have "extra" writings from writers, many of whom contradict themselves. That's why I wanted to keep this on a level playing field on texts we all agree on.
•By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)
Context is everything....suggest you read a few verses prior to James 2:24 and then all of Romans. If anything in Romans Paul lays out his clearest teaching against works or deeds regarding faith.
Baptism is one of the means of salvation.
Nope. Without faith it is just getting wet. Well, in the case of the catholic just getting sprinkled.....which is not in accordance with the Biblical model.
•By compassion toward the needy (John 10:25-37; Matthew 25:31-46)
Again context is everything. By your statement all someone has to do is give a cup of water and they're saved. That means you do not have to have faith in Christ. Just good works. Totally unbiblical.
•By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)
Actually in this case we see the young ruler could not be saved by keeping the commandments. Notice that Jesus skipped several of the commandments. The young man lacked one thing....he didn't follow Jesus. He did not love the Lord with all of his heart, soul, mind, or body.
•By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)
And how does one acquire that grace? Believing in Jesus! Notice also that if you continue in Eph 2:8-9 it clearly states we are not saved by works. Now, when we are saved we are to do good works as noted in v10 of Eph 2. Paul is not going to contradict himself in his writings. Again context is everything.
Now I will give you credit for something.
You appealed to the written Word.
You said the word “bible” is no where in scripture and I showed you were it is used multiple times. Nuff said.
Yep! There's no such word as "sacrament" in scripture nor any support for it. There is no "mass" or sacrifice other than the sacrifice of praise. Catholics can not show where the "traditions" they teach were taught by the apostles. The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church is nicolaitan and God hates it. There is no such thing as "apostolic succession" and scripture is our only source for what the apostles taught.
>>And then: would you care to name one ekklesia (identified by city or bishop) which existed in, say, the first millennium A.D., which meets these criteria?<<
Only one of the seven churches written to in Revelation was commended without warning and it wasn't "Catholic".
It would take a long post to list all the things that eliminate the Catholic Church as representative of the ekklesia of Christ.
Absolutely true! Eucharistic Communion also entails unity with all of us, the Communion of Saints, which is to say, the Body of Christ in its ecclesial meaning."The Greek word for participation in 1 Cor does not give the meaning the catholic hopes. It means sharing in, spiritual fellowship, a fellowship in the spirit."
The very words are "participation in the Body of Christ" and "participation in the Blood of Christ." I hardly think Paul would say "Body" and "Blood" if his intended meaning were "not the Body" and "not the Blood." Unless you think he was playing The Opposites Game.Paul was a church planter. No doubt. What is disputed is that authority was handed down.Christ Our Lord was incarnate; is incarnate; and will ever be incarnate. Your minimizing of both Jesus' and Paul's words, and preference for a bloodless, bodiless, non-incarnated Eucharist, tends to either deny the incarnation of Christ or to render His incarnate nature insignificant and inconsequential.
The Eucharist is a participation in the living, resurrected Christ, and thus the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.
This is what is happening between Paul and Timothy: 1 Timothy 4
"These things command and teach (!)"... Until I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
"... Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.
"What is also disputed is Paul exercising "authority"
Paul's authority is expressed in such words as these:"Notice his introduction... Paul and Timothy, bond-servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons... Everyone's on the same level."1 Thessalonians 4:11
and that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you2 Thessalonians 3:4
And we have confidence in the Lord concerning you, that ye both do, and will do, the things which we command you.2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ...2 Thessalonians 3:10
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat2 Thessalonians 3:12
Now those who are such, we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ that they work with quietness and eat their own bread.And so on and so forth. Whether Paul uses the word or not, he "commands" in every Epistle he wrote.
Your interpretation is based on a needless dichotomy between people being "brothers" and "bondservants" on the one hand, and as well being "overseers and deacons" on the other. But this is not a contradiction. The NT is characterized by servant-leadership. They had clergy (diakonoi, presbyteroi, episcopoi) and they had laity, and they were all called to sainthood, and they were all a community of equals where, nevertheless, some had special ministries of authority:"There was Baptism as one of the means of salvation" --- Getting wet, or sprinkled (?), doesn't save you. It just makes you a wet sinner unless you believe Jesus.1 Corinthians 12:27-29
"Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."And God hath appointed in the church: first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracle workers, then those with gifts of healing, helpers, administrators, and those with diversity of tongues.
"Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles?"
This is exactly the sound of someone identifying authority in the Church as coming from God, exercising that authority, and outlining the kinds and limits of authority, which is to be exercised in humility.
Intent is needed according to one's capacity: that is, intent to do as Jesus commanded. Otherwise, kids goofing around in a swimming pools, splashing water one each other and saying "I baptize you," would be conferring on each other salvation and the forgiveness of their sins, which is nonsense. Nevertheless, baptism "with intent"--- the intent to obey the Divine command, the intent to be forgiven,the intent to be incorporated into Christ---always has the effect intended. And even for babies (St. Paul says he baptized whole household and nowhere does it say he excluded the babies) the faith of their believing parents supplies the needed intent."There was Communion/Eucharist as one of the means of salvation. This does not save you either."So it's not an either/or thing. Even naked "faith" is not enough alone, as both James and Paul tell us:
"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James)
"If I have faith such as to move mountains, and have not love, I am nothing." - Paul (!)
Quite right! In fact, it can condemn you: for if you receive not discerning the Body, you become guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ (Body and Blood, again) and you incur your own condemnation. Nevertheless, partaking devoutly of the Body and Blood of Christ is one of the means of salvation:John 6:51 56
"I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven. If any man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever; and the Bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”"The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Then Jesus said unto them,
Calm down, it's all just a metaphor.“Verily, verily I say unto you,Don't get upset. You know, heh-heh, just kind of a Semitic hyperbole!Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you."Whoso eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood
is a disgusting cannibal, and I would never command that...hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the Last Day."For My flesh is
a kind of an allegorical image, you knowmeat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed.He that eateth My flesh and drinketh My blood
are you kidding? It's not even kosher...dwelleth in Me, and I in him."
Philippi was not separated from the Church as-a-whole, kata-holos (Catholic), and you have given no evidence that it was. As to what they would think of YOUR church, I don't know: but I'd suspect the first think they'd say would be "Who is your bishop? Is he in communion with Peter and the whole kata-holos church??
As for other topics, if you will remind me tomorrow, I will see if I can get on it. I have to outside and walk now, doctor's orders.
It all depends on the proper understanding that God has appointed those in authority in His Church as instruments to teach, to govern, and to sanctify. That's why the Apostles who had the Council in Jerusalem had the authority to say, "It seems right to the Holy Spirit and to us..." and to send out men to carry this word of authority to all the brethren in all the churches everywhere.
Everything you listed can be seen, felt, heard, etc. while the Ekklesia, the Body of Christ is made up of things that cannot be seen in this world. They are spiritually discerned and reside in heavenly places in Christ. We have one visible "mark" of our inheritance and marching orders from God: His Word.
Revelation 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; 8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. 11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
No Catholic Church made the cut. We can find the Catholic Church in Revelation 17 however.
In your dreams :o)
Indeed we can!
Right you are. We've never claimed to be a Sola Scriptura "interpret-your-own" church The words "Sola Scriptura" are un-Scriptural and in fact anti-Scriptural. They are also against Sacred Tradition, which is something Scripture tells us to hold onto.
(Tagline)
Please prove that what the Catholic Church calls "sacred tradition" is exactly what the apostles called "tradition".
Right you are. We've never claimed to be a Sola Scriptura "interpret-your-own" church The words "Sola Scriptura" are un-Scriptural and in fact anti-Scriptural. They are also against Sacred Tradition, which is something Scripture tells us to hold onto.
Yeah....from the church that claims to never change.
From what I've seen on this board the rcc has changed a lot since Vatican II. Not bad for a non-interpret your own church!
>Getting wet, or sprinkled (?), doesn't save you. It just makes you a wet sinner unless you believe Jesus.<
Intent is needed according to one's capacity: that is, intent to do as Jesus commanded. Otherwise, kids goofing around in a swimming pools, splashing water one each other and saying "I baptize you," would be conferring on each other salvation and the forgiveness of their sins, which is nonsense.
Whoa....stop the presses....you've changed your position considerably here. Previously you claim baptism did save. Now you have to have intent.
Nevertheless, baptism "with intent"--- the intent to obey the Divine command, the intent to be forgiven,the intent to be incorporated into Christ---always has the effect intended.
And even for babies (St. Paul says he baptized whole household and nowhere does it say he excluded the babies) the faith of their believing parents supplies the needed intent.
Ah yes...more reading into the text something that isn't there. No where does it say he did baptize little ones. In all those cases though, there was an intent of belief that was expressed.
If the catholic position is correct, and it's not, just baptize everyone when they're born and they're good to go.
I don't think you'd find any support on that in the Word. Maybe that gnostic mystical tradition catholics claim but for some reason cannot put into words.....but not the Word itself.
So it's not an either/or thing. Even naked "faith" is not enough alone, as both James and Paul tell us:
Again, context is your friend here. What did Abraham do to be saved?
"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.